(05-02-2018 12:08 PM)goldeneagle21 Wrote:  

(05-02-2018 11:41 AM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(05-02-2018 09:21 AM)goldeneagle21 Wrote:  

(05-02-2018 08:54 AM)cscottl1981 Wrote:  UMass used to be good in basketball in the Marcus Camby days. I don’t know much about their basketball team anymore and didn’t realize they played football (on a P6 level).

Nobody cares about your lack of ability to keep up with current events. This is more about your lack of knowledge than it is about UMass sucking.

Actually he is a perfect example of why we won't be adding UMass as this is the view of the general public:

Umass was good once in basketball and I didn't know they had football. What conference do they play in?


UMass hasn't done much, really anything since Calipari left and most people have no idea they play football.

Can't believe I'm sticking up for UMass but they have all the "qualifications" the AAC apparently looks for. If consistent success was part of it, Tulane and Tulsa would not be in. The "general public" knows nothing of Tulane or Tulsa either. Heck, SMU to the general public is "death penalty cheaters".

UMass is the southern miss of New England. They were left behind by their regional rivals. They missed the boat. They add a close team to UConn, that's their one positive. Their performance doesn't match up, their facilities don't match up. The level on which they try to compete doesn't match up.

They're located in Boston, next to UConn and have some history with the Huskies. Their basketball hasn't been anything in a while and their football is a never been. There are lots of schools with more to offer.

Tulsa and Tulane both have NY6 bowls in their history, accomplished seasons. Tulsa has several 10 win seasons recently, a ton of bowl games, a NCAA birth or two, and conference championships in football and basketball. They both also have very competitive Olympic sports with Men and Women's Tennis, softball for Tulsa and baseball for Tulane for example, etc.